DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

RESOURCE CENTRE

VICTORIAadvocate AUTUMN/WINTER 2016

insideResponding to the Royal Commission

The risk of lethal violence

Mums in court

Technology: more good than harm?

A new prevention frameworkISSN 2202-0810

DVRCV ADVOCATE |

A recent study of intimate partner homicides by DVRCV and Monash University demonstrates that, in many cases, there were warning signs prior to the homicide that indicated a risk of lethal violence. The research identifies a pattern of co-existing risk factors in many cases.

Identifying the risk of lethal violence

Background and purpose of the studyThe study, titled Out of Character? Legal responses to intimate partner homicides by men in Victoria 2005–2014, examined how the courts have responded to men who killed in the context of an intimate relationship. Changes to Victorian homicide laws were enacted in 2005 and in 2014, aimed at reducing excuses for men’s violence against women and improving responses to women who kill abusive partners. We identified 51 homicides by men since the law reforms in 2005, and examined how family violence was recognised and responded to in those prosecutions.

Based on the court documents that were the primary sources for our study, we were able to identify that, in many cases, recognised ‘red flags’ that indicate a risk of serious or lethal family violence were evident prior to the homicide. This article will discuss the risk factors in these homicides. For more information about how the legal system responded to these cases, see our discussion paper available online.

Our findingsThe study reinforces the findings of other Australian and international

By Mandy McKenzie & Dr Debbie Kirkwood, research unit, DVRCV, Dr Danielle Tyson, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Deakin University and Adjunct Senior Research Fellow in Criminology, Monash University, and Associate Professor Bronwyn Naylor, Faculty of Law, Monash University Email: mmckenzie@dvrcv.org.au, dkirkwood@dvrcv.org.au, danielle.tyson@deakin.edu.au and bronwyn.naylor@monash.edu

research, which clearly demonstrate that intimate partner homicide is a gendered phenomenon. Of the homicide prosecutions in Victoria between 2005 and 2014, men comprised the majority (80 per cent) of perpetrators.

Research has consistently found that the key risk factor for intimate partner homicide, no matter if a female or male partner is killed, is prior family violence (Campbell et al. 2007). Consistent with this research, in over half of the homicides by men in our study (27 of 51), there was evidence that the male offender had previously been abusive or violent towards his partner or ex-partner. In 12 cases, there had previously been an intervention order in place to protect the accused’s partner or ex-partner.

Prior threats to kill, or threats with a gun or other weapon, were evident in 12 cases. In some cases, the accused had also threatened to kill other people or the deceased’s children.

Case study: David Hopkins

On 1 June 2010, David Hopkins (aged 40 years) stabbed his partner Nicole Millar (aged 42 years) and then set her alight while she was in her car at a petrol station. She died soon afterwards. He pleaded guilty to murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum

inbrief › The study by DVRCV and Monash University examined 51 recent Victorian cases in which men killed in the context of an intimate relationship

› Key risk factors identified for intimate partner homicide included: prior family violence, controlling behaviour, mental health issues or drug/alcohol abuse and attempted separation

› Men’s beliefs about masculinity and gendered expectations and attitudes also contribute to risk, although they are difficult to measure

EDITION 1 | AUTUMN / WINTER 2016

non-parole period of 30 years (R v Hopkins [2011] VSC 517).

David and Nicole began a relationship in 2008. Between 2008 and 2010, during counselling sessions, Nicole had disclosed incidents of violence by David. Her children and work colleagues observed cuts and bruises on her. A week prior to the homicide, David went to Nicole’s workplace. He shouted abuse at her and attempted to use his car to force her car into a stack of rocks, then pinned her down and threatened to kill her (transcript of plea, 7 September 2011, pp.7–9). When a work colleague tried to intervene, David also threatened to harm him. Her colleague advised her to contact police, but Nicole said she was too frightened to do so.

In this case, other ‘red flag’ factors for a risk of lethal violence included the high level of fear of the victim, and unemployment and substance use by the offender.

Other risk factors identified in several cases in our study included stalking, and prior attempts to choke or strangle a partner. Strangulation is a ‘particularly gendered form’ of intimate partner violence, through which an abusive man can send the message that ‘he can and perhaps will kill the victim—a credible threat that is intended to induce compliance’ (Thomas, Joshi, Sorensen 2014, p.124–125). In the following case, the offender had previously attempted to strangle his partner when she tried to leave him.

Case study: James Mulhall

On 14 October 2011, Joy Rowley (aged 60 years) was strangled

and killed by her partner James Mulhall (aged 57 years) at her home. He pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to 19 years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 16 years (R v Mulhall [2012] VSC 471).

Joy Rowley and James Mulhall began a relationship in November 2010. Eight months before the homicide James had seriously assaulted and attempted to strangle Joy Rowley, requiring her to be hospitalised. This appears to have occurred after she tried to end the relationship. Police charged him with assault, and an intervention order was put in place which was supposed to ensure that he did not approach or contact Joy. In their victim impact statements read out in court during the plea, Joy’s two daughters and son spoke about how the legal system had not protected her: ‘The intervention order that was in place after the attack meant nothing. Mum was so scared of him. Mulhall didn’t respect the orders and returned. Mum knew the violence would continue if she challenged him to stay away’ (transcript of plea, 5 October 2012, p. 28).

A common perception is that the most dangerous men are ‘recidivist offenders’ who repeatedly physically assault their partners and/or repeatedly breach intervention orders. However, while many of the cases in our study fitted this pattern, not all of them did. In several cases there was no evidence that the offender had previously physically assaulted his partner, however there was evidence that he had been psychologically controlling during the

Above: The paper’s authors discussing the findings of the study at a forum in May 2016, with the Honourable Phillip Cummins as chair of the forum

DVRCV ADVOCATE |

Homicides under analysisThe study looked at homicides in the context of an intimate relationship, and included cases that involved the killing of an intimate partner or ex-partner, as well as killings of a ‘sexual rival’—where a male offender killed another male whom he suspected of having a relationship with his partner or ex-partner (there were seven of these cases in our study).

The study also provided a brief overview of 13 cases of women who killed an intimate partner. It is important to note that the study does not represent all of the intimate partner homicides that would have occurred between 2005 and 2014; in some cases there was no prosecution if the perpetrator committed suicide, and some sentencing judgements are not publically available online.

Australia. The daughter gave evidence that, while her parents were living together in India during their marriage, if her mother ‘even spoke to another man there would be physical consequences’ (R v Singh [2010] VSC 299, para. 4).

The perpetrators’ threats or attempts to commit suicide were also evident in 12 cases. In some cases this appears to have been part of an attempt to control the victim, particularly if she was attempting to leave the relationship.

Case study: Stephen McPhee

On 3 January 2013, Stephen McPhee (aged 56) killed his wife Cathy (58 years) by stabbing her twice in the chest. He pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 16 years (The Queen v McPhee [2013] VSC 581).

Several weeks before he killed his wife, Stephen McPhee allegedly became ‘aggressive’ and threatened to throw himself under a truck when Cathy spoke about wanting to separate (The Queen v McPhee [2013] VSC 581, para. 3). According to Stephen McPhee’s account, on the day he killed her, Cathy had told him she no longer loved him, and rejected his attempt to kiss her (The Queen v McPhee 2013 VSC 581, para. 6). He told police he had ‘seen red, grabbed the knife and stabbed her’ (para. 8).

Like Robert Baxter, Stephen McPhee was employed, had no prior convictions and had no apparent history of using physical violence towards his wife. However, witnesses gave evidence that he had been ‘jealous and controlling’ during their marriage (transcript of plea, 21 October 2013, p. 4). Despite this history, the Court of Appeal reduced his sentence to 18 years with a minimum of 13, accepting the argument by McPhee’s defence that the sentencing judge had not adequately recognised mitigating factors, including that there was ‘no history of domestic violence’ by Stephen McPhee, and that he had led an ‘unblemished and honourable life’ (McPhee v The Queen [2014] VSCA 156 para 6).

relationship. This finding is consistent with international research, which finds that a sizeable minority of homicides are not preceded by escalating physical violence (for example, Dobash & Dobash 2015). Controlling behaviour is identified in the CRAF as a key risk indicator for lethal violence.

Case study: Robert Baxter

Robert Baxter (aged 48 years) stabbed his wife Linda (42 years) to death in August 2006. Robert and Linda had been married for 21 years. His previous behaviour towards Linda was described by her mother as ‘mental bullying’: he was ‘controlling’, he ‘wouldn’t allow her to go to work until it suited him’, he ‘resented’ her going to social functions, and ‘just wanted Linda and the children there at home when he got there’ (Baxter, transcript of trial, 18 February 2009, pp. 86–87). Linda became increasingly unhappy and had begun a relationship with a male family friend. In early 2006, Linda Baxter told Robert that she wanted to separate. Robert became suicidal. In August 2006, after he discovered that Linda had begun a relationship with another man, he stabbed her to death, and wrote in a note that he had murdered her for her ‘adultery’.

At his trial, Robert Baxter argued that the cumulative effects of a major depressive disorder, an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, recent stresses and the ‘collapse of all hope’ of a relationship with Linda ‘triggered a mental state in which he temporarily lost the capacity for rational thought and action’ (transcript of trial, 6 March 2009, p. 937). Unconvinced by this argument, the jury found Robert guilty of murder and he was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years(R v Baxter [2009] VSC 180).

Obsessive jealousy was another risk factor evident in many cases. In some instances it appears that accusations of infidelity were used as a way of controlling the woman’s contact with others. For example, Sukhmander Singh stabbed his wife to death after she left India to stay with her daughter in

Obsessive jealousy was another risk factor evident in many cases

EDITION 1 | AUTUMN / WINTER 2016

SeparationIn 29 cases—more than half of the homicides by men in our study (including those discussed in this article)—the homicide occurred after the offender’s partner had attempted to leave or had left the relationship. In most cases (18 cases) the killing occurred within days or months of the woman’s attempt to separate. Additionally, in six cases, the victim had previously attempted to end the relationship but had apparently been persuaded or forced back into the relationship by the accused.

The CRAF tool identifies ‘recent separation’ as a key risk factor. However, in our study, separation was not always a recent event. Five homicides in our study occurred many months or years after separation. What appears to have been significant was not the length of time since separation, but rather the perpetrator’s ongoing anger and blame directed at his ex-partner, and his continued stalking and harassment of her (see for example, the case of Denis Delich, discussed later). In most of these cases, there was a triggering event that preceded the homicide, such as the victim successfully seeking legal intervention or a family court order.

Other risk factors relating to the perpetratorThe CRAF identifies that the offender’s unemployment is linked to an increased risk of lethal violence. In our study, just under half of the homicide offenders were not engaged in employment at the time of the homicide.

Substance abuse by the perpetrator is another risk factor for lethal violence identified in the CRAF. Over half of the offenders in the study (28 men) had a history of alcohol and/or drug misuse, although substance use did not always play a role in the homicide. Judges found that substance use contributed to the homicide to some extent In 17 cases.

Many men in our study had mental health problems, particularly depression—for example, 19 men had sought help for mental health problems prior to the homicide. The CRAF highlights that the perpetrator’s mental illness or depression is a risk factor for family violence; however, it also notes that depression or mental illness has not been found to be a factor that increases the risk of lethal violence.

The evidence base for risk factorsThe study used the family violence risk factors identified in Victoria’s Family Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Management Framework (known as the Common Risk Assessment Framework or CRAF). There are 26 factors listed in the CRAF tool, and some are ‘flagged’ as they are associated with an increased risk of the victim being seriously injured or killed. Based on the available research evidence, these key risk factors include the perpetrator’s controlling behaviour, obsessive jealousy, stalking, and sexual assault, as well as threats to kill the victim, children or pets, trying to choke the victim, and abuse during pregnancy. Relationship

separation is consistently found to be associated with higher risk of lethal violence. Other risk factors relating to the individual circumstances of the perpetrator are unemployment, substance abuse, suicidality and access to weapons.

Assessments of risk in the CRAF tool are based on a combination of three elements:

› the victim’s own assessment of her level of risk

› the evidence-based factors › the professional judgement of the

practitioner (Department of Health and Human Services 2012).

In over a third of the cases ... there was the co-existence of three or more factors: prior abuse by the perpetrator; his mental health issues or drug/alcohol misuse; and attempted or actual separation

Co-existing risk factors Recent research has identified that the level of risk faced by a victim of family violence may change over time and in relation to different events (Gnisci & Pace 2016, Sheehan et al. 2015). Triggering events may be those that ‘challenged the perpetrator’s sense of control over the victim and the relationship’ (Sheehan et al 2015 p. 284), such as the victim’s decision to end the relationship, or a change in child custody.

A history of controlling behaviour and attempted separation are commonly associated factors. For example, Campbell et al. (2003) found a nine-fold increase in the risk of homicide when women attempted to separate from highly controlling men. There were similar patterns in our study; 21 homicides (41 per cent of total) occurred after women left or tried to leave men who had previously been controlling and/or had perpetrated physical family violence.

In over a third of the cases (19 cases) there was the co-existence of three

DVRCV ADVOCATE |

had murdered a female intimate partner (Dobash & Dobash 2015).

Case study: Denis Delich

In November 2011, Denis Delich (60 years of age) shot and killed his ex-wife, Almasa Locic, outside her home. He pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 16 years (The Queen v Delich [2013] VSC 309).

Denis and Almasa had separated in 1997. After Almasa had left Denis, he would ‘turn up [at her home] on a regular basis to see that she was not socialising with other men’ (transcript of plea, 27 March 2013, p. 3). In 2009 he was placed on a community based order for making threats to kill his ex-wife and his sons. In the following years, he continued to stalk her and Almasa obtained an intervention order, which Denis breached.

Denis Delich had planned to kill his ex-wife and, in his confession to police, stated that he did it ‘because she got everything from me, she ripped me off’ (para. 10). He said, ‘I want her to die because … she destroyed my life totally, she’s evil woman’ (para. 29). He told a psychiatrist that on one occasion early in the marriage his wife had behaved in a ‘sexually provocative’ way with another man, and this had ‘haunted him’ after they separated and had

or more factors: prior abuse by the perpetrator; his mental health issues or drug/alcohol misuse; and attempted or actual separation.

A common pattern in these cases was the perpetrator’s controlling behaviour towards his partner during the relationship, his depression and/or heavy use of alcohol, and his increasing resentment at his partner working, socialising, or otherwise being independent. When his partner tried to end the relationship, he killed her.

Our research indicates that it may be useful for risk assessment frameworks to highlight the significance of the existence of a cluster of risk factors: prior family violence, mental health issues or drug/alcohol abuse, and separation.

More work also needs to be done to understand the links between risk factors, how they play out over time, and the role of gendered attitudes in creating risk.

The role of masculinity and attitudes Many of the men in our study expressed blaming attitudes towards their partners or ex-partners, and some said that their actions were justified because of their partner’s behaviour. Blaming attitudes have also been identified in a variety of other research studies—for example, problematic attitudes towards women featured heavily in a comprehensive study of over 100 men in the UK who

Many of the men ... expressed blaming attitudes towards their partners or ex-partners

EDITION 1 | AUTUMN / WINTER 2016

contributed to his inability to work and his depression (transcript of plea 27 March 2013, p.21).

Stereotypical expectations about the role of female partners were apparent in some cases. Several men expressed the belief that their wife’s role was to care for the children and household rather than to work outside the home.

Our study, along with other research (Bailey & Peterson 1995; Atkinson, Greenstein & Lang 2005), indicates that men’s gendered expectations about their role and status as the family breadwinner may contribute to why male unemployment is a risk indicator for family violence. For example, in several cases, the offender appeared to be resentful of his partner working when he was not.

Many of the offenders appear to have treated their partner as someone who was of lesser status, or as someone he ‘owned’ and who was not allowed to end the relationship. In nine cases there was evidence that the offender had used derogatory gendered terms (such as ‘slut’ or ‘bitch’) to refer to his partner.

Case study: Brian Andrew

In May 2007 Brian Andrew (aged 44 years) repeatedly punched and kicked his partner Janine Brockie (aged 42 years). He failed to seek medical attention for her injuries, and she died the next day (R v Andrew [2008] VSC 138, para. 24). The Crown accepted his plea of guilty to manslaughter, and he was sentenced 10 years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of seven years.

Brian Andrew had repeatedly assaulted Janine during their relationship, and there was evidence that Janine was frightened he would kill her

(transcript of plea, 17 March 2008, p. 4). According to the sentencing judge, Janine was a ‘vulnerable woman’ who had intellectual disabilities, including an acquired brain injury (para. 9).

A friend who witnessed the attack gave evidence that, during the assault, Brian Andrew was ‘inebriated’, had accused Janine Brockie of seeing her old boyfriends and told her: ‘Shut up bitch I am talking’ (para. 18).

Problematic attitudes towards women have been noted in other studies of family violence risk factors (for example, Stith et al 2004, Kropp 2008), although, as Salter has pointed out, while these may be an important risk factor, they are not readily amenable to external measurement (2012, p. 5).

Implications for risk assessmentThe CRAF tool, like family violence risk assessment models used elsewhere, is designed to assess the risk of male violence against a female intimate partner, though it currently provides little information on how masculinity and gendered expectations and attitudes contribute to risk. Further research is needed to develop a comprehensive understanding of risk factors, and how and why they are linked with men’s beliefs about masculinity and a sense of an entitlement to control in relationships with women.

Further studies should also examine the impact of different cultural and socioeconomic contexts on expectations around masculinity and relationships, and how this contributes to risk (Gnisci and Pace 2016; Salter 2012).

Such an understanding would enhance the ability of practitioners to work together in partnership with the victim to more comprehensively assess the potential danger posed by a family violence perpetrator.

Stereotypical expectations about the role of female partners were apparent in some cases

More about mental healthAfter the homicide, almost three-quarters of the men (37 cases) were diagnosed as having been suffering a mental illness (most often depression, but a whole range of other disorders were also identified) prior to or at the time of the homicide. This was based on the assessment of a forensic psychiatrist or psychologist engaged by the defence. However, as several judges pointed out during sentencing, these assessments should be interpreted cautiously, considering that they were often undertaken many months after the killing.

Many of the offenders appear to have treated their partner as someone who was of lesser status, or as someone he ‘owned’ and who was not allowed to end the relationship

DVRCV ADVOCATE |

The discussion paper and podcast from a forum discussing the findings of the study can be accessed at: www.dvrcv.org.au/knowledge-centre/our-publications/discussion-papers/out-character

In each of the cases discussed in this article, as in the majority of cases in our study, the victim had told family members or friends that she was fearful about how her partner might react to her wanting to end the relationship, or that she feared he may one day kill her. This reinforces other research that shows that victims are often aware of the potential danger posed by their partner or ex-partner, and points to the need for professionals to understand the experiences and fears of the victim, and to listen to and work in partnership with her in assessing the potential danger she faces.

It is apparent from our study, and is also a finding in many coronial inquests, that prior to the homicide there were warning signs that the victim was at high risk of being seriously harmed by her partner or ex-partner, but the legal and service professionals she had contact with did not adequately appreciate the danger she faced. Improving our understanding of risk factors can help to ensure that risk is identified at an early stage, so that we can intervene to prevent a homicide occurring.

References

Atkinson, M, Greenstein, T & Lang M (2005), ‘For women, breadwinning can be dangerous: gendered resource theory and wife abuse’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), pp.1137–1148

Bailey, WC & Peterson, RD (1995), ‘Gender inequality and violence against women’ in J Hagan & RD Peterson (eds.), Crime and Inequality, Stanford University Press, California, pp.174–205

Campbell, JC, Webster, D, Koziol-McLain, J, Block, CR, Campbell, D, Curry, MA, Gary, F, McFarlane, J, Sachs, C, Sharps, P, Ullrich Y & Wilt, SA (2003), ‘Assessing risk factors for intimate partner homicide’, National Institute of Justice Journal, 250

Campbell, JC, Glass, N, Sharps, PW, Laughton, K & Bloom, R (2007), ‘Intimate partner homicide: review and implications of research and

police’, Trauma Violence and Abuse, 8, pp.246–269

Department of Health and Human Services 2012, Family Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Management Framework and Practice Guides 1–3, Edition 2, Department of Human Services Victoria, Melbourne

Dobash, RE & Dobash, RP (2015), When Men Murder Women, Oxford University Press, New York

Gnisci A & Pace A (2016), ‘Lethal domestic violence as a sequential process: Beyond the traditional regression approach to risk factors’, Current Sociology, pp.1–16

Kropp PR (2008), ‘Intimate partner violence risk assessment and management’, Violence and Victims, 14(2), pp.202–220

Salter M (2012), ‘Managing recidivism amongst high risk violent men’, Issues Paper 23, Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse

Sheehan, BE, Murphy, SB, Moynihan, MM, Dudley-Fennessey, E & Stapleton, JG (2015) ‘Intimate partner homicide: new insights for understanding lethality and risks’, Violence Against Women, 21(2), pp.269–288

Stith, SM, Smith, DB, Penn, CE, Ward, DB & Tritt, D (2004), ‘Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: a meta-analytic review’, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp.65–98

Thomas, KA, Joshi, M & Sorensen, SB (2014), ‘‘’Do you know what it feels like to drown?’’: Strangulation as coercive control in intimate relationships’, Psychology of Women Quarterly 2014 38(1), pp.124–137

Victims are often aware of the potential danger posed by their partner or ex-partner